Non-Denominational Denominations and Other Contradictions

This article is designed to make us think a little more about
how we use language, and primarily to make us all critically
examine the claims of language, especially those made regularly
by Christians. If you are looking for a definition of
non-denominational, please read this article. Unfortunately, many
Christians can become accustomed to using words and phrases ad
nauseum (meaning "to nausea," i.e. repeating something so as to
engender disgust) without ever thinking about what they are
saying, or analyzing what their words actually mean. We snicker when
someone totally misuses a word, but often many of us do the same
thing, only with more subtlety. Ultimately language is just as
liquid and malleable as anything else in life. Meanings often
change and can become more technical over time. This is why
someone who knows modern demotic Greek does not necessarily know ancient Greek, although the two are similar. One example I can
think of for the liquidity of language is the word "gay." Just
twenty years ago the term primarily meant "happy" to the average
person. Now very few people use the term in its original,
non-technical sense, and if you did, you might encounter snickers from the younger generation! Thus I recognize that language changes and
is often subjective. Keep this in mind as you read the essay. I
will look at a handful of religious words and phrases, and
explain why in reality the words and phrases are often
contradictory.

Non-Denominational

If you spend much time on Christian websites and chat rooms on the internet, or simply take a look at the churches in your town, you have probably encountered "non-denominational" churches. In fact, you may be surprised at how many non-denominational churches have sprung up over the last twenty years. Why are they so popular?
Well, many people pride themselves in being "non-denominational."
"We don't belong to any (fill in put-down here, such as
"man-made," "hierarchical," etc.) denomination," they will say.
Then they insist that they joined a non-denominational church to
get away from the idea of denomination, and some will even imply
that by going non-denominational, they have found a holier, more
exciting religious experience than available in denominations. Some even go so far as to imply that the whole concept of an organized denomination is "corrupt" and counter to biblical Christianity. However, in trying to escape being in a "denomination," they have really found themselves
in the same situation. Let me explain.

If you look at the basic meaning of the word denomination, you
will find it simply means "designation" or "categorization."
Thus, by definition, "non" denominational would mean not
designating or not categorizing. The reality is that it is very
hard to avoid designation, because even the title
non-denominational is itself a clear designation, designed to
distinguish a church body from other groups. The same case
is true if we define denomination as categorization. Many feel
that by leaving a large, organized, Christian body, they are, "breaking away
from the spirit of denominationalism," i.e. freeing themselves
from categories and divisions. However, upon examination it is clear that whenever a non-denominational church is
started, rather than eliminating the spirit of category, a new
category has simply been started. Thus, whenever a
non-denominational church is started, a new category is also
created, and a new denomination has been formed. With thousands of
Christian denominations in the United States alone, one thing we do not
need is another denomination, whether it be named, or whether it
is a "non-denominational" denomination.

Non-Traditional (We Don't Follow
Tradition...Darn-it!)

We all have met people who claim to be non-traditional. They
are in essence the rebels in life and within Christianity.
However, rebellion has its own tradition. Let me explain
further.

Our word tradition comes from the Latin word
traditio, meaning simply to hand down. The Greek word
paradosis means the same thing. So anytime knowledge,
practice, or belief is handed down, i.e. passed on, tradition
exists. Thus "tradition" is any practice or belief
that we inherit from someone else. Anytime a minister speaks, or
a Sunday school teacher teaches, knowledge is handed down. When a
parent tells a child about God, or someone reads a book about
morals, knowledge is inherited. By the general definition of
tradition, everyone is traditional. The Bible itself is a piece
of tradition, a written handing down of Christian teachings. In
fact, Paul himself even says to hold fast to the
traditions he has given, both oral and written (1 Cor.
11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6). In ancient times, tradition was
especially valued.

Believe it or not, abhorrence of tradition has become a
tradition itself. In many churches and Universities, a
general hatred of tradition is taught and "handed down" on a
regular basis. Next time a professor or pastor tells you not to
trust tradition, tell him or her, "in that case, then your
recommendation to distrust tradition cannot be trusted, because
you have just passed down tradition to me!" The only way someone
can truly be a non-traditionalist is for him or her to have been
born and grown up in a cave with no contact with outside
information. Then he or she could step out into the world
tradition-free (and rather angry and dirty I suspect).
Unfortunately, the phrase, "Don't trust tradition," is
oft-repeated, despite the fact that "Don't trust tradition"
is itself a tradition, and now, a long-held one at that.

Non-Institutional

It was (and probably still is) in-vogue to criticize
institution. Many endlessly criticize "organized religion" or
"institutional religion," preferring perhaps disorganized
religion, or a religion that won't last very long. Who
knows? This may be a function of our individualistic society, but nonetheless, I believe that in the 21st century, there is more likely to be an uncritical dislike of institutions than an uncritical allegiance to them.

Anyway, the basic definitions of institution are "a custom
important to a group of people for a period of time,"
"established custom or method," and "an enactment." It seems to
me that institution is a bit hard to fully avoid. For instance,
how many so-called "non-institutional" churches have been
teaching their beliefs about "non-institution" for so long that
they themselves are institutions. Being non-institutional can
(and often is) itself be an established custom or method, and
thus can be institutional. If a group of people gathers
"informally" for long enough, then they become an institution. I
guess they would have to gather informally one year and formally
the next in order not to be institutional, and even then the
alternating of years could become institutionalized.

Non-Ritualistic (We Only Worship
Spontaneously)

Many have prided themselves that their actions are
spontaneous, i.e. unplanned. In Christianity, spontaneity is
often lauded as the most pious form of worship. In some churches,
the gospel message seems to be "do something new every week" as
opposed to "preach the timeless gospel of Jesus Christ," which as
we know is very old and not a new or spontaneous thing.

Even spontaneity has its problems. To be truly spontaneous,
planning, and any outside motivation must be avoided. To be truly
spontaneous, people cannot even gather together unless each
individually randomly comes to the conclusion that it is a good
time to meet, and happens to decide to go to the same place at
the same time. Also, once people have all decided to drop what
they are doing and meet (not planned mind you), then they must
only do unplanned things. So if these individuals gather at the
same time each week, sing the same types of songs, have the same
type of program, i.e. sermon and prayers, then they are no longer
spontaneous. Spontaneity is another term that is thrown around
very often without being fully considered. It seems that many are
more ritualistic, or work within a regular framework of fixed
patterns and structures, than they would like to admit, which of course, is not a bad thing at all.

Non-Creedal (We Don't Believe in
Creeds!)

All Christians have met another Christian who says, "we
don't have creeds," or "we don't believe in creeds."
Some who have this belief direct hostility to those who do have
creeds, believing them to be constraining or non-biblical. The
problem is that we all have creeds.

Creed comes from the Latin credo, i.e. "to believe."
So any time a group of people (or an individual) believes
something, they technically have a creed. Even the phrase "we
don't believe in creeds," is itself a kind of creed.
And just by observing the words, the worship, and other
commonalities of a person or church, it becomes apparent that all
indeed do have many defined beliefs. I do not wish to be
offensive, but the only people without creeds are individuals
with totally diminished mental capacity. If
one is capable of belief, he or she technically has a creed.

Catholic

I have to include this, because it hits home to me and the
website I am writing for. It is not fair to only criticize the
language that others often use, and not examine the language that
I often use. So here goes.

Catholic in its general sense just means, "according to the
whole" i.e. "universal." In a more Christian sense it means the
universal church, i.e. both ancient and modern. The opposite of
universal is "particular," or "according to the individual," or
in the Christian sense, "congregational." Congregational means
that each individual local church is its own self-contained unit.
This is contrary to ancient Christianity where each body was a
part of a larger, worldwide entity. However, many who use the
word Catholic in their name are actually congregational. For
instance, some groups have recently broken off from the larger
Catholic Church to form new churches, claiming the
Catholic Church (and all churches but them) is now heretical.
I see these churches as quite particular, and not universal, since they believe that the Catholic Church has erred and only the few schismatics are correct. It is rather ironic to see a group of 5,000 members confined to a few states within the United States claiming to be the "Catholic" Church. Nonetheless, it happens.

Also, other groups have laid claim to the Catholic label, even when acting very congregational. One example is the Episcopal church (also called "Anglican"), who recently consecrated a practicing gay man as bishop. Despite the fact that many leaders of this denomination claim to be "catholic," this action is certainly not "according to the whole" and goes against years of Tradition, not to mention the opinion of most others in the Anglican Church. Thus, despite claiming to be "catholic," they have acted in an extremely congregational fashion.

Concluding Remarks

So in the end, we have many "non-denominational"
denominations, "anti-tradition" traditionalists,
"anti-institutional" institutions, "spontaneous" ritualists,
"non-creedal" creed believers, and non-catholic "catholics." As I
said before language is fluid, and I am not going to take away
the right of individuals to focus in on a more technical
definition of a word, e.g. where denomination means "a
historical, large, body of churches." However, just as people
have the right to a definition, so do we have the right to
examine each word and phrase. Unfortunately, critically analyzing
the use of words can be troublesome at times. At a recent Vestry
meeting, the treasurer said an expense was part of
non-categorized expenses. I laughed to myself, thinking, "but
'non-categorized' is itself a category." Fortunately for the sake
of getting us home in less than three hours, I kept my mouth
shut. (updated 5-19-05)